Donate

KWEBA ni BAROK

Four Nominees Bring Loyalty. Leonen Brings a Refusal—and That’s Exactly Why Marcos Should Pick Him.

Published by

Louis ‘Barok’ Biraogo

on

Why the Only Nominee Who Owes Marcos Nothing Is the Only One Worth Appointing

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — November 3, 2026

I’LL DO you the favor of skipping the foreplay, dear readers—the shortlist is out, and four of the five come pre-owned.

The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) has handed President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. a shortlist of five Supreme Court (SC) justices to succeed Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, and the commentariat has already begun the usual parlor game of “who will the Palace pick?” (ABS-CBN News).

The smart money, we are told, is on Rodil Zalameda, the justice who, mere weeks before the vacancy, authored the decision acquitting Imelda Marcos of graft. The cynical money, however, is on a different outcome entirely: Marvic Leonen.

Now, before the Palace communications team dispatches its troll farms to accuse me of being a paid operative of Leni Robredo (who, for the record, did endorse Leonen), allow me to explain why the most suspicious choice is also the most intriguing one.

“Four Justices Brought Strings. Leonen Brought Scissors.”

The Case for the Man Who Refuses to Promise Anything

Leonen’s JBC interview was a masterclass in anti-politics. In a country where judicial appointments are traditionally lubricated with utang na loob and carefully calibrated assurances of “collegiality,” Leonen opened with what can only be described as a declaration of war on the entire patronage system.

His words, as reported by the Inquirer: “I give no bribe or assurance to anyone about any matter at any time and to anyone. I do not offer a resort that simply follows my own political views, nor do I offer loyalty or protection to anyone.”

Read that again. A man seeking the highest judicial office in the land, in front of a council that includes the Secretary of Justice and a congressional representative, publicly announced that he will not owe anyone anything. This is either the most courageous statement in recent Philippine judicial history or the most spectacular act of political self-immolation since the late Miriam Defensor Santiago told the Senate to “put me in jail” if she was lying.

The suspicious reader (and I am nothing if not suspicious) might wonder: why would a candidate with the votes already secured need to say such things? Or, conversely, why would a candidate without the votes say them so loudly? The answer, of course, is that Leonen knows exactly what he is doing. He is daring Marcos to reject him.

And that, dear readers, is precisely why Marcos should appoint him.

The Seniority Trap (or: Why “Most Senior” Is Not an Argument)

The Palace’s apologists will argue that Leonen is the “natural” choice by seniority. He has served on the Court since 2012, under five Chief Justices, alongside thirty-seven associate justices (Supreme Court of the Philippines). He is the most senior associate justice.

Under the Judiciary Act of 1948, he will serve as acting Chief Justice upon Gesmundo’s retirement if no successor has been appointed.

But let us be clear: seniority is not a constitutional qualification. It is a convenience. The Constitution demands “proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.”

Leonen’s record on these four counts is, by any objective measure, formidable:

  • Magna cum laude in economics from the University of the Philippines (UP)
  • Fourth in his law class
  • Columbia LL.M.
  • Dean of UP Law
  • Chief peace negotiator with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF)
  • Fourteen years of Supreme Court jurisprudence (Stanford Law School)

What the Palace fears (and what the suspicious observer should note) is that Leonen’s jurisprudence has not always been convenient for the powerful. He has written separately in cases challenging budget practices. He has dissented on issues involving executive authority.

He has proposed an independent study of major corruption cases since 1986, which is precisely the kind of initiative that makes certain people in certain offices reach for their lawyers.

The Zalameda Problem (or: The Imelda Elephant in the Room)

Let us address the rumor that refuses to die. Multiple reports have identified Zalameda as Marcos’ reported preference. Malacañang has neither confirmed nor denied. The Palace, we are told, “declined to preempt the President’s decision.”

How convenient.

Zalameda’s judicial record includes the September 2026 decision reversing the Sandiganbayan’s 2018 conviction of Imelda Marcos on seven counts of graft. The timing, weeks before the Chief Justice vacancy, is either an extraordinary coincidence or the most brazen audition for a promotion since a certain actor-turned-politician declared “I am not a thief” on national television.

I am not accusing Zalameda of anything. I am merely observing that the appearance of impropriety is a concept that exists in the 2025 Code of Judicial Conduct and Accountability (A.M. No. 25-04-04-SC) for a reason—Canon 3 demands not just the reality of fairness, but its appearance.

If a justice rules in favor of a political dynasty’s matriarch and is then rewarded with the highest judicial office by that dynasty’s scion, the public is entitled to ask questions that no amount of “presumption of regularity” can answer.

The Cambridge University Press study on Philippine judicial behavior, published in Law & Social Inquiry, found a statistically significant “loyalty effect” among justices voting on cases involving their appointing presidents. The study attributes this to utang na loob and pakikisama, cultural dynamics that make the American-style “judicial independence” model look charmingly naive.

If the study is correct, then appointing Zalameda would not merely be a reward for the Imelda decision. It would be an investment in future loyalty.

The Marquez Option (or: The Bureaucrat Who Would Be King)

And then there is Jose Midas Marquez, the Court Administrator for nearly twelve years, the man who knows where every judicial body is buried because he probably filed the paperwork for the burial. Marquez has proposed a five-year Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2.0, which is exactly the kind of initiative that sounds impressive in a PowerPoint and terrible in practice.

The problem with Marquez is not that he is unqualified. It is that he is too qualified in exactly the wrong way. The Chief Justice is not merely an administrator.

The Chief Justice is the constitutional conscience of the judiciary, the presiding officer of the Supreme Court, the ex officio chair of the JBC, and, in moments of constitutional crisis, the person who determines whether the President’s actions have crossed the line.

Marquez has never served as a trial or appellate judge. His career has been inside the Supreme Court apparatus, managing the machinery rather than adjudicating the great questions. Appointing him would be like appointing a hospital’s chief operating officer as its chief surgeon. The trains might run on time, but the patient might die on the table.

The Caguioa and Dimaampao Footnotes

Caguioa has the most executive experience (Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary, Chief Presidential Legal Counsel), which is precisely why his independence is questionable. He served Aquino loyally. Would he serve Marcos loyally? Or would he, as he promised in his JBC interview, respect the separation of powers?

Dimaampao is the most technically accomplished candidate, a Certified Public Accountant (CPA)-lawyer with expertise in taxation and Shari’ah law. His appointment would be historic for the Bangsamoro.

But he joined the Court in 2021, and his jurisprudence on constitutional questions is thin. The Chief Justice must lead the entire judiciary, not merely the tax division.

Why Leonen (and Why Marcos Should Do It)

Here is my suspicious conclusion: appointing Leonen is the only choice that would actually strengthen Marcos’ legacy.

Think about it. Marcos has spent his presidency fighting the perception that he is his father’s son: that he is a creature of patronage, a beneficiary of martial law-era impunity, a man who cannot separate the state from the family. The Imelda acquittal, whatever its legal merits, feeds that perception. A Zalameda appointment would confirm it.

But a Leonen appointment? That would be a statement. It would say: I am confident enough in my own legitimacy that I can appoint the most independent justice on the shortlist, a man who has ruled against my administration’s budget practices, a man endorsed by my political opponents, a man who explicitly refuses to offer me loyalty.

It would be political jujitsu of the highest order. It would disarm the critics. It would confound the cynics. It would be, in a word, intriguing.

And if Leonen then rules against Marcos in some future case? So be it. That is what an independent judiciary looks like. That is what the Constitution demands. That is what the Philippines has not had in a very long time.

The alternative, appointing the man who freed Imelda, is not merely a bad idea. It is a boring bad idea. It is the kind of choice that confirms every suspicion, validates every cynic, and guarantees that the next generation of Filipinos will continue to view the Supreme Court as an extension of Malacañang rather than a check on it.

Marcos has five choices. Four of them are safe. One of them is right.

Appoint Leonen. If only to prove that the appointment was not about what he could do for you, but what he could do for the country.

And if you don’t? Well, the Kweba will be here, watching, taking notes, and preparing the next critique.

Key Citations

A. Reports & Studies

B. News Articles

C. Legal & Official Sources

Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo

Leave a Reply

Hello,

I’m Louis ‘Barok’ Biraogo

Let’s connect

Join the fun!

Stay updated with our latest tutorials and ideas by joining our newsletter.

Recent posts